Weaves Library Overhaul
View previous topic | View next topic >
Post new topic Reply to topic
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Admin Discussion
   
Author Message

Joined: November 20, 2003
Posts: 2561
Submissions: 77
Location: Northbrook, IL

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Dec 05, 2005 9:36 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

That would be the weave page itself that we expand. That's a separate project from arranging the weaves themselves into a navigable library. What goes on the weave page isn't really of concern right now. I'm sure it will look like the plan in that thread, with or without the pandora web I've created.

Hey, this is my "golden post" or something. It's post number is my member ID! 1705 yay!

Joined: April 15, 2002
Posts: 1819
Submissions: 1
Location: Calgary, AB. Canada.

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Dec 06, 2005 7:55 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Oh? Maybe I misunderstand all of what it is you're wanting to do then.

I know I'm a jackass for asking this after posting two five page posts, but..

Want to briefly recap? Smile

Joined: March 3, 2002
Posts: 4372
Submissions: 79
Location: tres piedras, new mexico

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Dec 07, 2005 4:44 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

instead of displaying the weaves library as seperate families, they would all be in one list, with keywords you can search by.

this way you could search "all weaves" or "spiral" or "european hybrid" weaves.. or all "tao" or "byzantine" or "king" or "scale". each weave could have as many descriptive keywords as it needed.

this makes for a dynamic circular presentation, as opposed to a static linear presentation.

the idea for the seperate page for the weave with all the other information would be basically the same, with the addition of tesserexs' weave relation idea if he wants to do that

or, that is what i had gleaned.

also, a member was just moderated for swearing.. we should probably set a good example for them here.

kim


PSA: remember to stretch.
3.o is fixing everything.

Joined: April 15, 2002
Posts: 1819
Submissions: 1
Location: Calgary, AB. Canada.

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Dec 07, 2005 5:21 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

sakredchao wrote:
this makes for a dynamic circular presentation, as opposed to a static linear presentation.


Hrm. Alright, I'm game.

Quote:
also, a member was just moderated for swearing.. we should probably set a good example for them here.


Offtopic, but worth exploring. Swearing? *ponders*

Unless I'm missing something I or someone said earlier, "jackass"? "Jackass" is a bad enough swear to need moderating?

Hrm. New thread. Smile

Joined: November 20, 2003
Posts: 2561
Submissions: 77
Location: Northbrook, IL

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:20 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I've just redone the submission for 2-1 chain. It's the first one under Hybrid. I made a new picture for all three layouts and gave it a mini-article description. Please take a look and see if you approve. I hope this will become the heart of our new weaves library system.

Joined: March 3, 2002
Posts: 4372
Submissions: 79
Location: tres piedras, new mexico

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Dec 19, 2005 4:02 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

i feel like the persian family can be presented with a 2-1 chain, but it won't hold it's shape the way the others will.. but i feel a rendering could represent it.

i feel like this system is the system we are currently using, but perhaps i don't understand where your thinking is leading you.. would you mind explaining your ideas more?

i still think a keyword system is the most accurate representation of maille as a whole.. the family system of identification is useful for describing aspects of a weave, and probably the best "static clasification system" there is. but it has limitations.

i will, of course, stand behind whatever decision you make in this.
you're the weaves guy.

kim


PSA: remember to stretch.
3.o is fixing everything.

Joined: November 20, 2003
Posts: 2561
Submissions: 77
Location: Northbrook, IL

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Dec 19, 2005 4:22 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

I can't think of any way to show the persian family. According to my definition, persian stitches require both TE and AE connection. This has a minimum of 3-1.

I don't plan on keeping the family designation that they have, actually. The purpose here (I shouldn't have used the word family in the weave description) was to describe the kinds of stitches, and then each weave can be described with combinations of those. A sort of proper nomenclature for all the weaves.

Joined: March 3, 2002
Posts: 4372
Submissions: 79
Location: tres piedras, new mexico

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Dec 19, 2005 4:36 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

ahh, so you're talking about a maille-latin for a sort of scientific-like classification?

for persian, what about one row of "persian4 sheet" which i call hp2sht4..?

kim


PSA: remember to stretch.
3.o is fixing everything.

Joined: November 20, 2003
Posts: 2561
Submissions: 77
Location: Northbrook, IL

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:44 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Ahh you mean like euro, every other ring lies in a stack that sets up the eyes, but no rings pass through it. It's the angled row of that sheet. The horizontal row is my HP3-1 flip.

Edit: Done!

Joined: November 20, 2003
Posts: 2561
Submissions: 77
Location: Northbrook, IL

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Dec 24, 2005 3:57 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Okay, I've finished a mockup of the new weaves front page. Forget the visuals, this is just the layout. Also realize that nothing works. The checkboxes / radio buttons don't even interact.

https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/cschwar4/www/Weaves.htm

Finally, we have something tangible! Well, the newbie page is also, but I feel like we're finally making some progress toward the site redesign.

Joined: April 15, 2002
Posts: 1819
Submissions: 1
Location: Calgary, AB. Canada.

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Dec 24, 2005 7:35 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Looks pretty snazzy. I'm not sure it's the best way to organize weaves, yet.

I was thinking the other day about weaves reorg again.. and I think we should do two sorting mechanisms.

One, a "Common", "Uncommon" and "Experimental" ranking for each, just alphabetically. Or, maybe the first would just be "Simple" and "Advanced" weaves. So, simple would have E4-1, E6-1, Byz, Triz, Turk, P6-1, P4-1, P4-1, CIR, etc etc. 20-40 weaves. The common ones you can pick up easy, at the start. The advanced has everything else.

The second sorting mechanism, more or less what you've done here (or, the end result of refining it).

So, obviously, the first type is for new beginners or those looking just to browse the list... and experts who want to do the same. A catelogue. The second, for advanced users looking for a calculation-like search.

As for layout, you should use.. I don't know what they're called. The round boxes, like how a multiple-choice test would be online. For each item, a pair. Include vs. Exclude. Since they're exclusive (you can't both include and exclude something).

Or.. you could stick with boxes and at the top of the list have "Include" on the left, "weave name" in the middle", "Exclude" on the right. Stating "Exclude" for each is awkward.

Moving on..

I don't know much about weaves, so I can only ask a few questions about the way you've decided to break things down and have you explain them. Some of them don't make sense to me, but that might be because I just don't know.

For example: "Good for jewelry", "Good for fabric", "Good for sculpture".. do not seem to be good categories to me.

Who is making the judgement call, and, what happens when someone figures out how to make any of those easier? What is good for jewelry? You pick a weave that you think is not good for jewelry, and, I can probably show you how it can be great for jewelry.

Better categories would be "Chain weave" and "Sheet weave". Sheets of minimum width can of course be chains, but, we'll exclude that. At least you'll know if the pattern, as it's defined, expands in 1D or 2D. Now that I think about it... maybe 3D is a good idea too. Is this what you meant by Jewelry, Fabric, and Sculpture?

And about not being able to select more than one sub-family. Doesn't this search return a list of weaves? I understand that any one single weave could not be more than one sub-family.. but what if I'm looking for something that *could* be a Byzantine or Dragon, but not Mobius?

This isn't so much the impressive part, as is if you can actually define each weave by this list, behind the scenes. That's the amazing part.

Joined: November 20, 2003
Posts: 2561
Submissions: 77
Location: Northbrook, IL

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Dec 24, 2005 7:50 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I can incorporate the simpler thing into this page, but I have some reservations. I'm pretty strongly opposed to a labeling system that's arbitrarily choosing weaves that we find "easy" or "simple" or "beginners" or "core". There's no factual properties of the weaves to back it up. "Basic" is the closest, which just means its composed solely of it's subfamily component and nothing else (as much as possible).

Joined: March 3, 2002
Posts: 4372
Submissions: 79
Location: tres piedras, new mexico

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Dec 25, 2005 5:00 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

oh yeah, we forgot the basic option for the @ weaves, tess.. don't know if you left it out on purpose. but, i feel it should be in there for the newbies.

as for jewelry, armor and sculpture. some weaves will fit in all categories. some weaves, like hp3s6 are great jewlery weaves, but are technically sheets. i also considered breaking them down into "chains and sheets" but i feel this is clearer. (i think we stole the idea..)

i definitely see cyankes point about having radio buttons between the attribute and "exclude", if you can click on one and then click it again to make it blank, in case you made a mistake and clicked the wrong option.. i don't know if radio buttons allow that.

as for breaking it down just by advanced and basic.. 3 categories are not nearly enough for over 500 weaves.

this system allows you to search the "box & round" weaves in every family.

or allows you to specifiy your search to all weaves in a certain AR tolerance, for people who have a pile of rings in a certain AR.

or allows you to view all weaves in reverse cronological order (all new weaves first).. sometimes i come back after 4 months and want to see all the new weaves, but there's no way other than to go through the entire library.

or, allows you to look for all the "tao / not tao" weaves (and any other sub families that pop up in the future.)

with proper instructions, i feel this sytem is the most useful to the most people that i've seen.

kim


PSA: remember to stretch.
3.o is fixing everything.

Joined: April 15, 2002
Posts: 1819
Submissions: 1
Location: Calgary, AB. Canada.

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Dec 25, 2005 8:54 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

sakredchao wrote:
as for jewelry, armor and sculpture. some weaves will fit in all categories. some weaves, like hp3s6 are great jewlery weaves, but are technically sheets. i also considered breaking them down into "chains and sheets" but i feel this is clearer. (i think we stole the idea..)


Well, again, how do you make all those judgement calls? 1D, 2D, and 3D patterns are physical properties of the weave. What they're good for is completely relative. I'm not even sure a weaves admin can make that kind of choice. What is "bad" for one situation can be good for another.

I'd like to think *all* weaves are "good" for everything. Or at least, only limited by your imagination.

The information is useful and can exist, it's just not that useful as a search criteria in my opinion. What a weave is good for can be included in the weave's individual page. (Or, what it's commonly used for, how well it's properties work for sculpture, etc). If the info isn't known, then it can stay blank.

Quote:
if you can click on one and then click it again to make it blank, in case you made a mistake and clicked the wrong option.. i don't know if radio buttons allow that.


Hrm. I don't think so. But, 3 options would be fine. It could default to N/A, then have Include, Exclude beside it.

Quote:
as for breaking it down just by advanced and basic.. 3 categories are not nearly enough for over 500 weaves.


Not if that is the only system, no. But we could stick to the 5 category breakdown we have now for the advanced. In regards to Tess's concern about being able to pick 30-40 "simple" weaves.. it's not rocket science. I picked about 15 of them and I don't think anyone would dissagree. It's not so important that it's precise, it'll just be that those are the starter weaves that most newbies would want.

Most people who use MAIL, I think, are newbies. Or at least, would not stray very far from the more common 30-40 weaves. That's an important thing to recognise and deal with. An advanced search should not be the only option available. I think people will need to be eased in a little, until they're comfortable enough and knowledgable enough to view.

Quote:
this system allows you to search the "box & round" weaves in every family.

or allows you to specifiy your search to all weaves in a certain AR tolerance, for people who have a pile of rings in a certain AR.

or allows you to view all weaves in reverse cronological order (all new weaves first).. sometimes i come back after 4 months and want to see all the new weaves, but there's no way other than to go through the entire library.

or, allows you to look for all the "tao / not tao" weaves (and any other sub families that pop up in the future.)


Yep, those are all great things and all extreamly useful tools to have at our disposal. I have no beef with most of the setup, and I definately think and advanced sorting/searching/defining mechanism is an important thing to have, especially at the size we're at now. I'm not saying to replace Tess's system, I'm saying, by itself, it neglects a lot of what people will be looking for, so we should supplement it.

I don't think there's any one system that does everything we want, but, I think between two simple systems, (a beginner/simple and an expert/advanced) we can cover pretty much everything.

This is something Aderamelach, Drax, and I discussed quite heavily. Take the off-site links for example. How do we sort/display them? Break into categories? Sure. Give includeable/excludable attributes for each? Yep, also a good idea. But how to sort? Is alphabetically fair? No, it's biased to those links alphabetically first. Is the system usefull? No, not really, unless looking for something specific.

What most people want when they go to the links are the most common ones, the biggest ones, the ones with the most information. Not some very even very fair splattering that weighs nothing heavily.

So how do you weigh? You (as an admin) make a judgement call. When you're pointing people to ring suppliers, sure, let them know there's 50 of them, and let them see and search the list. But, also just tell them to go to TRL and DC, because 96% of the time that's all they want.

If Tess is going to have trouble making judgement calls to select a basket of starter weaves.. I don't know how he's going to be able to make all the calls necessary to judge what each weave is good for or not.

*shrug*. Even if you insist on keeping the "Good for" ratings, I think there should be Chain, Sheet, Block attributes too. I'd like to be able to search by those, and not just by someone's opinion.

Joined: March 3, 2002
Posts: 4372
Submissions: 79
Location: tres piedras, new mexico

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Dec 27, 2005 9:34 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

i won't go into how to "play favorites" with the link list, that's another bag of worms. we could open up a thread about it, but i think it behooves us to get this weave thing straightened out first... and then, personally, i'd like to discuss the article library rather than the links.. i suspect the rest of the libraries will be modeled after how we arrange the weaves library, with variations based on the specific needs of each.. but, again, another bag of worms.

either way, i think that only discussing one library at a time is easiest for people.. and keeps folks from being overwhelmed. i know you are keen on tieing the libraries together. i agree, and i think that can be discussed most easily after we have discussed how we are going to move around the individual databases.

i don't see too much of a difference between "armor / jewelry / sculpture" and "sheet / chain(rope) / block". that's just nomenclature, to me.. especially if we describe what the terms mean in a useful help page (with pictures). i suspect the same weaves would end up in the same categories.

i definitely see a use for a beginner weaves search. i would use the current @ weaves, and possibly a couple others that have been submitted recently (vipera berus comes to mind). the "advanced weaves" search is already covered in the family/subfamily/properties/AR search module.

i'm glad to see your input in this, cynake. i hope i don't come across otherwise. i know i can sometimes be like the goat in my avatar.. a smelly, obnoxious, butthead, looking down my nose. Razz

kim


PSA: remember to stretch.
3.o is fixing everything.

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Page 2 of 4. Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Wed Jul 23, 2014 3:55 am
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Admin Discussion
Display posts from previous: